On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Whoa, now I am really confused. This seems to have gone in the opposite > direction than what I thought. > > First it narrowed down to privileging some small set of BZ users. > > And then protecting our committers that have @openoffice.org email addresses. > > Also, I don't think there had been any intention to preserve the > @openffice.org mailing lists. Also, setting their addresses to forward to a > different list that is not subscribed to is just weird. So I don't > understand the list forwarding scenario. > > And I have seen no one talk about moving the subscriber lists and adding > those subscribers to a list they did not opt into.
Joe and I discussed doing it w/o subscriber lists. As a pure forwarder that's choice one and two. > > I hope I misunderstand the common understanding about that. You do. See my other reply. > > LET'S BACK UP The following is a third choice. Are you willing to build and maintain it? > > If there is only one thing that can be preserved, I believe it should be the > forwarding. I understand that's a lot of forwarding, although the demand > might not be that high, as a proportion of the number of forwards served per > day. > > I shall commit the unpardonable sin of instant design now: > > MAILING-LIST TOMBSTONING > > What were once mailing-list e-mail addresses (such as us...@openoffice.org > and market...@openoffice.org) could forward to a tombstone dead-letter > responder or something that bounces posts sent to the old lists, giving them > some sort of information about available options, perhaps. -subscribe, > -unsubscribe, -owner, and -help requests and such could be handled politely > too (or likely receive the same response). That should be a one-time setup > and the PPMC could manage and help set them up, I think. It would be a > passive operation from then on, though it might be nice to be able to update > the tombstone messages as the situation on the Apache side changes. The > tombstone message might link to a web-site page where there are particulars, > since the web site is easier to set up in advance (on our staging SVN) and > continue maintaining after web-site cutover. At some point the tombstones > could be retired, although it seems harmless to just leave them and simply > continue maintaining the tombstone-referenced web pages as needed. (Even > when AOOo goes TLP, so long as the OO.o site is perpetuated at http:// > *.openoffice.org, there should be no need to fix the tombstone messages.) > > BARE-BONES EMAIL FORWARDING > > With regard to regular e-mail forwarding, it would be nice if folks could > maintain their own. > > But if it is to be a one-time passive list, I don't think there is any reason > to discriminate. Just keep forwarding all of them to where they go now. > > There is the small use of people using them as logon IDs (with or without the > @openoffice.org) and having profiles on the site. I think that can be > simplified by having most of the login buttons take people to an explanation > that they now need to log on separately to the various properties (bugzilla, > wiki, forums), and what to do to find properties that are no longer part of > @openoffice.org but have other forms under Apache. (The manage my own > mailing list subscriptions page would be one of those.) The logon-use is a > PPMC action in maintaining the migrated web pages and should not require > Infrastructure support. The static forwarding list and acquisition of the > list from Oracle is where Infrastructure is indispensable. [I would > recommend that the password hashes be brought over too, if possible, just in > case there is an use for them with some sort of utility function later.) > > How these addresses are retired is more complex because a bounce is not to > the user that has that e-mail address but someone wanting to reach them, or > forward something from a mailing list, etc. I figure that can be solved > later. > > WRAP-UP > > That's my understanding of the two key use cases and my rationale for > emphasizing e-mail forwarding over mailing-list-forwarding (whatever that is > envisioned to be). > > Am I in violent agreement or am I at odds with where this thread has arrived > now? > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 18:54 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org e-mail addresses > > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 9:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org e-mail addresses >> >> Hi Joe, >> >> Thanks for the clarity. >> >> On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> >>> ezmlm and qmail are married packages. >>> qmail is an MTA and ezmlm is a qmail app >>> for managing mailing lists. >> >> Thanks. >> >>> Given the surprises I've seen here by folks >>> getting used to the whole ezmlm feature-set, >>> I'm confident that Oracle is using something >>> >>> other than that for ooo. >> >> They are using SYMPA. They allow html. They allow bad SPF. > > > We could allow html too if that's what the group prefers. > Contrary to popular opinion the "tolerate html" settings > are configurable on a per-list basis with ezmlm. > > > >> >>> >>> Postfix is what I'd recommend we use for dealing >>> with the forwarding needs, but postfix isn't compatible >>> with ezmlm so we'd need to run that on a separate >>> host. >>> >>> What I'm trying to point out for you here is that >>> the mail server software I'd recommend for forwarding handling >>> and the software I'd prefer using for ML's are incompatible >>> with each other, and I'm not going to run some crazy >>> scheme to try and divvy up the domain between two >>> separate mail servers. >>> >>> Pick your poison in other words, either the focus is >>> on ML's, in which case forwarding addresses only get >>> support limited to a select few (committers say). >>> Otherwise the focus is on forwarding addresses, in which >>> case someone other than infra will be responsible for >>> the upkeep of the mailing list infra for ooo. >> >> Are the following two configurations accurate statements of what you would >> support. >> >> Configuration A - ezmlm/qmail on the usual ASF MTA >> >> 330 OOo MLs w/o subscribers forward to project MLs. >> <100 committers/PPMC members with OOo forwards to either an external email >> or their apache forwarder. Just the apache address? > > > Doesn't matter where the forwarders go to, but I'd recommend matching > them up with the apache.org address as once they're enabled they won't > ever be changed without a polite plea to infra for help. > > >> >> Configuration B - postfix on a jail maintained by the project >> >> 330 OOo MLs w/o subscribers forward to project MLs. >> <100 committers/PPMC members with OOo forwards to either an external email >> or their apache forwarder. >>> 20,000 BZ OOo forwarders to external emails. >> Volunteers for postfix admin. > > > Not just postfix, but whatever mailing list software > you want to use (mailman say) to manage the ML's for > the openoffice.org domain. Keep in mind that while > I'm offering to help with the postfix setup and initial > forwarding database drop, it will require the work > of a PPMC member to provide support for allowing changes > to the forwarding addresses, not to mention list migration. > > >> >> I personally prefer Configuration A. > > > OK, I think you've understood the gist of the choice I'm offering. > > Of course that means the phaseout of all the forwarding addresses > will happen pretty much as soon as we cutover the mail service > to ASF gear. > > >> >> Let's see if we get Consensus, or if we need a vote. >> >> We don't need to hurry the MTA migration as much as other OOo services. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> >>> >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> >>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Cc: "orc...@apache.org" <orc...@apache.org>; 'Lawrence Rosen' >>>> <lro...@rosenlaw.com> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 8:37 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org e-mail addresses >>>> >>>> Hi Joe, >>>> >>>> Now I am confused you mention 3 different possible mail managers for MX >>>> for openoffice.org. >>>> >>>> (1) qmail - does Oracle/Sun use this in addition to SYMPA? >>>> (2) ezmlm - a version of this is the ASF's MTA, correct? >>>> (3) postfix - is this an alternative you mention because it could support >>>> a large forwarding database? and you don't want that "feature" in ezmlm? >>>> >>>> If every email to openoffice.org is either forwarded according to a >>>> database or bounced. If there are no or the minimum required by internet >>>> protocols mboxes on the openoffice.org MX. >>>> >>>> What is the threshold for being incorporated into the ASF's normal ezmlm? >>>> If all of the forwarders were to apache.org addresses would that work? >>>> >>>> I guess I don't understand the complexities of Apache's MTA. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> >>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>> Cc: "orc...@apache.org" <orc...@apache.org>; 'Lawrence Rosen' >>>>>> <lro...@rosenlaw.com> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 7:47 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org e-mail >>>>>> addresses >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Joe, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 1, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually you should know I'm the main >>>>>>> guy who deals with the mail services >>>>>>> at the ASF, so yeah considering my opinion >>>>>>> as relevant might be wise ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> openoffice.org MX at ASF questions >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) In hosting OOo MX will there be a need for any real mail boxes? >>>>>> >>>>>> (2) Any trouble with double forwarders for securityteam@OO.o? >>>>>> >>>>>> (3) There are currently about 330 MLs that the project would like to >>>>>> forward. Kay and Rob are emailing these lists and informing about the >>>>>> new lists. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be good to have these ML forwarders exist as long as the ASF is >>>>>> handling OpenOffice.org MLs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personally I have no interest in maintaining whatever mailing list >>>>> software >>>>> Sun/Oracle chose for managing their lists. OTOH my experience with qmail >>>>> suggests that such software doesn't have a lot of maintenance >>>>> requirements, >>>>> so if a reasonable plan were developed for migrating the lists to some ASF >>>>> host that was careful not to preserve list subscriptions, I'd be willing >>>>> to >>>>> help with the transition. >>>>> >>>>> But over time, because this service isn't a part of our main ezmlm-based >>>>> mailing-list infra, we'd probably not want to be involved in its upkeep, >>>>> and that means we'd be more than happy to shut it down if time proves >>>>> that nobody else here wants to be bothered with that either. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The PMC will need to sort out how to allocate its resources given that >>>>> constraint. Infra is happy to assist, and willing to investigate ways >>>>> of incorporating openoffice.org lists into our ezmlm-based infra, but >>>>> that effort will be terminally hampered by the presence of all those >>>>> ooo forwarding addresses that I won't ever expose to qmail. Sorry. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (4) There are less than 100 PPMC/Committers. Some of them have their >>>>>> lives revolving around their OOo forwarder. >>>>>> >>>>>> Should we allow these trusted people to have their OOo email be >>>>>> forwarded. I would say to their apache id, but I bet many people in the >>>>>> project have their apache id pointing at openoffice.org. (There might be >>>>>> Apache committers unrelated to AOOo with their apache id forwarding to >>>>>> OOo.) >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Value judgements aren't things I'm equipped to make for the PMC. I'm >>>>> more than happy to evalate the technical feasibility or lack thereof >>>>> for providing an indefinite period of support for select forwarding >>>>> addresses based on how the ML situation is to be dealt with. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Does the size of groups (3) and (4) bother you if these are continued >>>>>> for a long time? >>>>>> >>>>>> (5) There are identifiable and relatively large numbers of individuals >>>>>> with OOo in other systems where we think it would be good to continue >>>>>> for some time measured in months. Rob has numbers in the 40,000 or >>>>>> 80,000 range. >>>>>> >>>>>> This would be phased out or terminated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does the initial size of (5) bother you? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. It just means a flat file storage system won't work. We'll need to >>>>> use a proper >>>>> (non-relational) database, and fortunately postfix supports several of >>>>> them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >
